SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1971 Supreme(SC) 406

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.K. MITTER AND P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.
The Bombay Panjrapole, Bhuleshwar, Appellant
Versus
The Workmen and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 1331 of 1966, D/16-8-1971.
Advocates appeared
Mr. D V Patel, Senior Advocate, (Mr. I. N, Shroff, Advocate, with him), for Appellant; Mr. G.B. Pai, Mrs. Urmila Kapoor, Miss Bhajan Ram Rakhiani and Mr. R. K. Khanna, Advocates, for Respondent No, 1.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 227 – Industrial Disputes Act – Sections 2, 12 – Government Promissory notes – Deed of declaration of trust – Writ of certiorari – Question involved in this appeal by special leave from an order of Bombay High Court rejecting summarily a petition under Article 227 of Constitution for issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ for examining legality of award made by Industrial Tribunal, Maharashtra and published in Maharashtra Gazette and for quashing same appears to be one of first impression so far as this Court is concerned – Held, In present case only one stud bull there is purchased but activities pursued by Bombay Panjrapole make it clear that they were pursuing same kind of activity, namely, that of using stud bulls for purpose of breeding healthy cattle including cows so as to be able to make a very sizable income from sale of milk. – For last few years from 1958 to 1962 number of milch cows was always considerable which could only be accounted for by fact that from time to time place of cows which had become dry was being taken up by cows fecundated by bulls maintained for purpose of keeping up a steady supply of milk. – Court have already referred to fact that value of milk supplied to sick and infirm cattle was infinitesimal compared to that sold in market. – Expenses incurred in connection with treatment of sick and infirm animals were also negligible compared to total expenses of institution. – Number of men employed for such treatment was very small at all times. – Mere fact therefore that Panjrapole never purchased milch cow and never purchased stud bulls except once makes no difference to question as to whether their activity of maintaining cows and bulls could only be considered as an investment – Court hold that activities of Panjrapole as disclosed in thins case constituted an industry within meaning of section 2 (i) of industrial Disputes Act and appeal must therefore be dismissed with costs – Appeal Dismissed

Judgment

MITTER, J.:- The question involved in this appeal by special leave from an order of the Bombay High Court rejecting summarily a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ for examining the legality of the award made by the Industrial Tribunal, Maharashtra on July 27, 1965 and published in the Maharashtra Gazette on August 19, 1965 and for quashing the same appears to be one of first impression so far as this Court is concerned.

2. The appellant before this Court is an institution which came into existence as far back as 1834. It originated in the desire of certain Hindu and Parsee gentlemen of the City of Bombay to put a stop to the practice of killing of stray dogs by the sepoys of the East India Company. The deed of October 18, 1834 shows that certain Hindu, Parsees and Mahajuns had resolved to start a Panjrapole with suitable buildings by raising subscription and also by promising to pay certain fees on stated mercantile commodities to the Panjrapole to be established for the keeping of stray cattle and other animals and for protecting their lives. This was followed by a deed of declaration of trust executed on 2nd November, 1850. This shows that the institution mentioned in the earlier document had been established and the management of its funds had been placed in the hands of certain Banias under the superintendence of Sir Jamshedjee Jeejeebhoy and that out of the surplus funds collected Rupees 75, 057/- had been invested in the purchase of Government Promissory notes. The trustees were to stand possessed of the said notes and interest and dividends thereof upon trust for the use and benefit of the said institution.

3. On 2nd November, 1850 a deed of assignment and declaration of trust in favour of Panjrapole was executed by Sir Jamshedjee Jeejeebhoy to Khimchand Motichand. This document shows that a part of the surplus funds had been invested in the purchase of several pieces or parcels of lands, houses etc. and the new trustees were to stand possessed of the same upon trust for the use and benefit of the said institution. Another trust deed was executed on 5th September, 1851 by Khimchand Motichand, Sir Jamshedjee Jeejeebhoy and others. This document shows that the institution was then possessed of considerable wealth comprising of Government promissory notes, houses, lands and other immovable estate in the Island of Bombay, besides cash balances.

4. The funds of the institution appear to have been augmented further under a deed of 10th June, 1871. According to this document certain charitably disposed persons, Hindus and Parsees, had raised a fund for releasing animals in Surat meant for slaughter on the occasion of Bakri-Id and Id-E-Kurbani. The trustees of the said fund being desirous of transferring the sums in their hands with all accumulations of interest, income etc. and also the trust thereof to the trustees of the Bombay Panjrapole had requested the trustees of the said Panjrapole to become the trustees of Surat Bakri-Id fund to which the latter had agreed. This document shows further that the trustees of the Bombay Panjrapole had agreed to use the said funds towards the purchasing, releasing and redeeming from slaughter some of the cows, sheep and other animals intended or likely to be sacrified at Surat on Bakri-Id or Id-Kurbani occasions and for conveyance of the animals so purchased to be kept there according to the custom and rules of that institution. In 1915 the Government declared the institution as an infirmary under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (IX of 1890).

5. It would appear that the Bombay Panjrapole expanded its activities considerably over the years and had besides its original seat at Bombay, branches at three other places, viz., at Raita, Bhiwandi and Chembur. Cattle, birds and other animals were kept and maintained at all these places. A very large number of persons was pursuing manifold activities at the said


















































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top